Blog Post

Last month, The New York Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks wrote, “Most people don’t change much over time.”

Really?

Then again, I suppose I do agree, that is, if we don’t care to change or we kid ourselves that we did our best, when actually we secretly are not fully sure what our best could have even been. How could we?

When clients, take the courage to know themselves rawly, I’ve witnessed lives transform ~ and how!

Usually, we are guessing about where to start. Here’s a solid first step:

“In a good marriage you identify your own selfishness and see it as the fundamental problem. You treat it more seriously than your spouse’s selfishness…Everyday there’s a chance to inspire and encourage your partner to become his or her best self. In this lens, marriage isn’t about two individuals trying to satisfy their own needs; it’s a partnership of mutual self-giving…to make their corner of the world a little better.”

This is one way of seeing your wedding rings’ intent, and it suits empirical research about happily thriving, fulfilling relationships. Nonetheless, in his Op-Ed, David Brooks summarizes two other viewpoints that reach far into our heads, like into the back of your kitchen junk drawer where the long lost key is waiting to be re-found.

“. . .If you read the popular literature, there are three different, but not mutually exclusive, lenses through which to think about marriage decisions:

PSYCHOLOGICAL/PERSONALITY LENS

Most of the popular advice books adopt a psychological lens. . . .The psychologists want you to think analytically about whom to marry.

Pay attention to traits. As Ty Tashiro wrote in “The Science of Happily Ever After,” you want to marry someone who scores high in “agreeableness,” someone who has a high concern for social harmony, who is good at empathy, who is nice.

You want to avoid people who score high in neuroticism — who are emotionally unstable or prone to anger. Don’t think negative traits will change over time, Tashiro wrote, because they are constant across a lifetime. Don’t focus on irrelevant factors, like looks. Don’t filter out or rationalize away negative information about a partner or relationship.

ROMANTIC LENS

The second lens is the romantic lens. This is the dominant lens in movie and song.

More than people in many other countries, Americans want to marry the person they are passionately in love with. Their logic is that you need a few years of passionate love to fuse you together so you’ll stay together when times get hard.

The third lens is the moral lens. In this lens, a marriage doesn’t exist just to exist or even just for procreation. It exists to serve some higher purpose, whether it is seeking God’s kingdom for the religious or in service to some joint cause or humanity-enhancing project for the secular. In “The Meaning of Marriage,” Tim Keller argued that marriage introduces you to yourself; you realize you’re not as noble and easy to live with as you thought when alone.

In many marriages there’s an unspoken agreement not to talk about what you don’t admire in the other, because the truth from a loved one can be so painful.

But in a good marriage, you identify your own selfishness and see it as the fundamental problem. You treat it more seriously than your spouse’s selfishness. The everyday tasks of marriage are opportunities to cultivate a more selfless love. Everyday there’s a chance to inspire and encourage your partner to become his or her best self. In this lens, marriage isn’t about two individuals trying to satisfy their own needs; it’s a partnership of mutual self-giving for the purpose of moral growth and to make their corner of the world a little better.

USE ALL THREE

It’s probably best to use all three lenses when entering into or living in a marriage. But there are differences among them. The psychological lens emphasizes that people don’t change much over a lifetime. Especially after age 30, people may get a little more conscientious and agreeable, but improvements are modest. In the romantic view, the heart is transformed by love, at any age. In the moral view, spiritual transformation — over a lifetime, not just over two passionate years — is the whole point. People have great power to go against their own natures and uplift their spouses, by showing a willingness to change, by supporting their journey from an old crippled self to a new more beautiful self.

The three lenses are operating at different levels: personality, emotions, the level of the virtues and the vices. The first two lenses are very common in our culture — in bookstores, songs and in movies. But the moral lens, with its view of marriage as a binding moral project, is less common. Maybe that’s one of the reasons the quality of the average marriage is in decline.” Read David Brook’s full article in its original format here

About the Author

NATIONAL EXPERT. Terry Klee is a top couples therapist who is known by other psychotherapists as the one to refer their own family and friends, because Klee balances intelligence with an enjoyable collaboration. Terry Klee is also recognized nationally for her fresh scholarship about so-called childlessness, making her popular as a down-to-earth infertility counselor.
BIT OF THE PERSONAL. Those closest to Terry would say that she's: (1) the human who still laughs often, especially with her husband; (2) the buddy who will stand-up for you in the schoolyard; (3) the therapist who doesn't mind saying she's sat where you sit; and (4) the weekend orchardist who's scared to climb the trees but does it anyway.
BLOG. So, for a professional blog, Terry makes the complicated un-complicated. She casts neurobiology and interpersonal dynamics onto the entertaining stage of popular culture. So, you can breathe a little bit better in your private world.